MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HANDOUT PACKET March by xumiaomaio

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 46

									                                                                       MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                                                                    HANDOUT PACKET



                  Santa Clara Valley
                  Urban Runoff
                  Pollution Prevention Program
Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
        San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District

                                                March 19, 2009 Meeting

                             MATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
II. March 19, 2009 MC Meeting Agenda
III. February 19, 2009 MC Meeting Minutes
IV. February 19, 2009 Action Items

VII.A. Program Manager’s Report

    5. CASQA Board of Directors Meeting Summary, March 12, 2009

VII.F. Outreach Activities

    2. FY 08-09 Watershed Watch Campaign Monthly Report, February 2009
    2. Watershed Watch Campaign Partner Matrix, February 2009
    2. Watershed Watch Web Stats, February 2009

VII.G. Watershed Management Initiative Activities

    1. Land Use Subgroup Meeting Highlights, March 4, 2009

VII.H. Other Ad-Hoc Task Group Reports

    1. C3 Provision Oversight AHTG Meeting Summary Report, March 9, 2009

VII.I. Other Business

    1. External Meeting Summary
              •    RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting, September 18, 2008
              •    CASQA BPP Work Group Meeting Summary Report, January 26, 2009
              •    RMP 2009 Sport Fish Sampling Teleconference, February 10, 2009
              •    Regional Water Board Hearing Meeting Summary Report, February 11, 2009
              •    CASQA BPP Work Group Meeting Summary Report, February 19, 2009
2. Miscellaneous
      •   Senate Bill (No. 346), introduced by Senator Kehoe, February 25, 2009
      •   Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Chris Crompton, California Stormwater
          Quality Association, re: Comments on November 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation
          Guidelines for the Construction and Development Industry (Docket ID No. USEPA-HQ-OW-
          2008-0465), February 26, 2009.
                      Santa Clara Valley
                      Urban Runoff
                      Pollution Prevention Program
             Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
                 San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


                                                       AGENDA
                                          MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                           March 19, 2008, 9:15 to 10:30 a.m.
                                    Sunnyvale Civic Center, West Conference Room
                                         456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale

9:15         I.     Management Committee Meeting Call to Order/Introductions

            II.     Additions or Revisions to Agenda; Announcements

           III.     Approval of Minutes (February 19, 2008 meeting)

           IV.      Review of Action Items from Last Meeting

9:25       V.       Time Open for Public Comment on Any Subject Not on Agenda (2 minutes)

           VI.      Regional Water Board Staff Comments

9:30      VII.      Program Business

                  A. Program Manager’s Report -- Information Items

                    1. Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) – status report.

                    2. Update on Grant Applications – status report.

                    3. Update on CASQA Meetings – information.

9:45              B. Program Management – Update and Action Items

                    1. Notice to Proceed for Program Manager for FY 2009-2010 – request approval.

                  C. Program Budget -- Update and Action Items

                    No items.

10:00             D. Urban Runoff Management Plan – Update and Action Items
                    1. FY 09-10 Program Work Plan – status report.




Agenda 0309 final                                                     1                                                             3/13/09
               E. Monitoring Activities- Update and Action Items
                    No items.

10:05          F. Outreach Activities - Update and Action Items

                    1. WEO AHTG – status report.
                    2. Watershed Education and Outreach Campaign –status report.
                    3. Workshops & Presentations – status report.

               G. Watershed Management Initiative Activities
                    No items.

10:15          H. Other Ad-Hoc Task Group Reports

                    1. C3 Provision Oversight AHTG – report on March 9 meeting.
                       a. HMP Implementation Phase Work Group – no report.
                       b. HMP In-stream Projects Work Group – no report.
                    2. Trash AHTG – report on February 25 meeting.
                    3. Watershed Analysis AHTG – no report.
                    4. AHTG Status Table – status report.
                       (To view updated table: go to www.scvurppp.org (click on “Management Committee”
                       and “status”)

10:25          I. Other Business

                    1. External Meeting Summary - key issues/action items from external meetings.
                    2. Miscellaneous

10:30 VIII. Adjourn




Agenda 0309 final                                      2                                            3/13/09
                                                        MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                                                             MINUTES
                 Santa Clara Valley                                                                    February 19, 2009
                 Urban Runoff
                 Pollution Prevention Program

     Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
         San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


I. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CALL TO ORDER / INTRODUCTIONS
Frank Maitski (Chair, SCVWD) called the meeting to order at 9:35 am. The meeting was held at
the Roosevelt Community Center. Management Committee (MC) members introduced
themselves.

II. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA; ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no changes to the agenda. The following announcements were made:
•   Jill Bicknell (Program staff) informed the MC that she has e-mailed them a brief write up on
    the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s IPM Innovator award ceremony. Copies of the
    award certificate and certificates of recognition received from Assembly Member Ira Ruskin
    and Senator Abel Moldonado are being distributed to the MC today.
•   Kelly Carroll (WVCWP) reported that all 4 3 West Valley Community newspapers have
    covered the recent Green Gardener training. She passed around the newspapers.
•   Frank informed the MC that the Water District’s Board Meeting on February 24 will include a
    discussion on the Urban Runoff Program. The Board Meeting on March 10 will include a
    discussion on Erosive Forces.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Eric Anderson (Mountain View) said that the MC minutes need to be corrected to state that he
distributed a memorandum on construction inspections to City of Mountain View project
superintendents and not inspectors.

Motion: Joe Teresi (Palo Alto) moved to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2008 MC
meeting with the requested edit. Second: Lorrie Gervin (Sunnyvale). Vote: Motion passed
unanimously.

IV. REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST MEETING

Action Items from December 18, 2008 Meeting:
•   None

Action Items from Previous Meetings:

• Action Item 12-07-1 (Confer with the WMI Land Use Subgroup to determine a “home” for
  Stream Protection, Restoration, and Erosion Forces (SPREF) activities within the WMI) is in
  progress, and the completion date is to be determined.

V. TIME OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT NOT ON AGENDA



      111 West Evelyn Street, Suite 110• Sunnyvale, CA 94086 • tel: (408) 720-8811 • fax: (408) 720-8812
            1410 Jackson Street • Oakland, CA 94612 • tel: (510) 832-2852 • fax: (510) 832-2856
                                                   1-800-794-2482
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                                 2                              February 19, 2009

Trish Mulvey (CLEAN South Bay) reported that the County’s Public Education Technical
Advisory Committee is planning a print media campaign promoting reusable grocery bags. Trish
may ask the Program’s Watershed Education and Outreach Ad Hoc Task Group (WEO AHTG)
to consider conducting transit advertising to support this media effort. She will also talk to VTA
representatives to find out if they can also support this effort.

VI. WATER BOARD STAFF COMMENTS
Water Board staff did not attend the meeting.

VII. PROGRAM BUSINESS
    A. PROGRAM MANAGER’S REPORT
         1.    Tour of Stormwater Features at Roosevelt Community Center
         James Downing (San Jose) gave a background of the project. He said that 1% of the
         project capital cost was reserved for art and the community requested that it focus on an
         “environmental/water” theme. The City worked with an environmental artist to develop
         and implement the project. The project includes the following exterior artwork pieces that
         also treat stormwater via detention, infiltration and bioretention:
         o    The first piece is a translucent eleven foot cobble-filled plexiglass column that serves
              as a filter. It is fronted by a steel casing with an etching of the Coyote Creek
              watershed system.
         o    The second piece is a band of porous asphalt, located in the public sidewalk in front
              of the building along with a plaque embedded next to it explaining its function and
              the value of infiltration.
         o    The third piece captures roof runoff in a series of artistic scuppers, and directs it to a
              Japanese style rock garden in the shape of a large thumbprint, which detains water
              before it flows to nearby swales.
         Monitoring equipment has been placed in all three pieces to collect data on their
         function. An interpretive sign has been placed inside the Community center to foster
         watershed awareness. The Community Center also includes other smart growth features
         such as bike parking and compact parking spaces. The Roosevelt Community Center is
         a LEED Silver-certified Green Building.

         2. Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)

         Adam Olivieri (Program Manager) reported that the revised MRP Tentative Order has
         been released for review and comments. Comments are due on April 3. The Alameda
         Countywide Stormwater Program has asked for an extension on the deadline, however
         after talking with the Contra Costa Program, Adam felt that we should just continue with
         the current schedule. Adam added that an internal meeting of the Management
         Committee to discuss the MRP has been scheduled for Monday, February 23.

         3.       Water Board Action on 303(d) List Revisions

         Adam reported that Program staff attended the 303(d) public hearing and provided
         comments. The main comment was that the entire stream/creek should not be listed if
         only a couple of segments have trash issues. However, the Water Board did not accept
         this argument. The next chance to submit comments is at the State Board hearing. Trish
         suggested that the Program send out an e-mail clarifying that being listed on the 303(d)
         list is not the same as having a TMDL.



F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\MC minutes 2-19-09final.doc
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                               3                              February 19, 2009



         4.    Update on Prop 84 Grant Applications

         Jill reported that the Prop 84 guidelines have been adopted. However, the request for
         applications is on an indefinite hold due to the State’s budget situation. Program staff are
         tracking the status and trying to identify projects. Jill and representatives from the San
         Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program are meeting with Water Board
         staff next week to discuss a possible project.

         5. Update on CASQA Meetings

         Jill reported on the following highlights from the CASQA Board and Executive Program
         Committee meeting of January 8, 2009:

         o    The Board elected officers and committee chairs for 2009.
         o    The Ventura County Permit, Orange County Permit and the MRP are all scheduled
              for adoption in spring 2009.
         o    The next draft of the Construction General Permit is expected in late spring.
              Requirements in the EPA draft Effluent Limitation Guidelines may impact the limits in
              the Construction Permit. CASQA is preparing a comment letter on the EPA
              Guidelines.
         o    The next CASQA meeting will be on May 15 in Oakland. The September meeting will
              be in Sacramento. The 2009 CASQA Conference will be held in San Diego on
              November 1-4.
         Jill also reported on the CASQA General Meeting. Meeting minutes are included in the
         MC handout.

    B. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
         No Items.

    C. PROGRAM BUDGET
         1. FY 09-10 Program Budget

         Adam reported that the Budget Ad Hoc Task Group/Executive Committee (BATG/EC)
         held two meetings in January, one on the 15th and the second on the 28th. The
         BATG/EC meeting minutes were emailed to the MC on February 2. The same e-mail
         also included the revised draft FY 09-10 Program Budget. The BATG/EC recommended
         that:
         o    At the February 19, 2009 MC meeting, the MC should approve the Program’s revised
              draft FY 09-10 budget (dated 1/30/2009).
         o    At the March 19, 2009 MC meeting, the MC should provide a Notice-to-Proceed to
              the Program Manager starting July 1, 2009 and forward that recommendation to the
              Fiscal Agent.
         The MC agreed to approve the FY 09-10 Budget at the February meeting and the
         Notice-to-Proceed at the March meeting.

         Motion: Eric Anderson (Mountain View) moved to approve the Program FY 09-10
         Budget. Second: Rick Mauck (Santa Clara). Vote: Motion passed unanimously.



F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\MC minutes 2-19-09final.doc
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                               4                              February 19, 2009



         2. MOA Review

         Adam reported that the BATG/EC recommended that the MC should consider the
         following tentative schedule for initiating and completing the review of the SCVURPPP
         MOA:
         o   Initiate review one year prior to due date of the next NPDES permit application,
             tentatively December 2012 (based on the anticipated schedule for the MRP).
         o   Complete preliminary review in time to file the permit renewal application, tentatively
             December 2013 (based on the anticipated schedule for the MRP).
         o   Complete final review and approval of MOA six months prior to the expiration of the
             current MOA, tentatively July 2015.
         Motion: Eric Anderson (Mountain View) moved to approve the BATG/EC recommended
         tentative schedule for review of the SCVURPPP MOA. Second: Rick Mauck (Santa
         Clara). Vote: Motion passed unanimously.

         Frank Maitski (SCVWD) and Lorrie Gervin (Sunnyvale) reported that the BATG/EC,
         without the Program Management staff present, discussed the need and appropriate
         schedule for the review of the Program Management contract. The current Program
         Management (PM) contract includes a clause for annual renewal. The City of Sunnyvale,
         as the Fiscal Agent, would like additional direction from the MC regarding the anticipated
         term of the PM contract. They both noted that while there were no compelling issues
         requiring a PM contract review, it seemed appropriate to review the PM contract during
         the second year of the new Permit cycle. The BATG/EC will be meeting to further
         discuss the exact timing and format of the PM contract review and will request that the
         MC formally notify the fiscal agent of its intent.

    D. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN
         1. FY 09-10 Work Plan
         Adam noted that the Work Plan was developed based on discussions with Water Board
         staff at the December 5, 2008 BASMAA meeting. He noted that review of the revised
         MRP which was released on February 11, 2009 and comparison with the draft budget
         indicate that during the first year of the new Permit, the SCVURPPP priorities appear to
         be consistent with the MRP. He also noted that the revised MRP still contains a
         significant jump in new requirements and hence new resource demands during the third
         and subsequent years of the MRP. Such demand seemed unrealistic given current
         economic times and under current financial constraints and that a major SCVURPPP
         and BASMAA comment would be that these new requirements be phased out over
         several permit cycles and not just assume that they could be met within the next five
         year permit. Adam noted that only minor comments have been received from the MC
         and that the MC should consider tentatively approving the Work Plan and leaving final
         approval contingent upon receipt and appropriate response to Executive Committee
         comments by February 25, 2009.

         Motion: Eric Anderson (Mountain View) moved to tentatively approve the Program’s FY
         09-10 Work Plan with final approval contingent on Executive Committee review by
         February 25. Second: Rick Mauck (Santa Clara). Vote: Motion passed unanimously.

    E. MONITORING ACTIVITIES
         No items.


F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\MC minutes 2-19-09final.doc
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                              5                            February 19, 2009



    F. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

         1. Watershed Education and Outreach Ad Hoc Task Group
            Vishakha Atre (Program staff) reported that the WEO AHTG met on February 2, 2009.
            The WEO AHTG discussed the Watershed Watch Campaign and recommended that
            the Watershed Watch consultant’s contract be renewed for another year. The WEO
            AHTG also finalized the public opinion survey and the Watershed Watch brochure.
            The brochure is with the printer now.

         2. WE&O Campaign
            Vishakha said that the Watershed Watch Campaign reports are included in the
            handout. Kristy McCumby-Hyland (Sunnyvale) reported that the 26 people have
            signed up for the current Green Gardener trainings.
         3. Workshops
            Jill reported that the Rural Roads BMP Implementation Workshop will be held in
            March and the Program’s C.3. Workshop will be held in June. A workshop on
            Sustainable Streets (San Mateo County’s new manual) is also being planned, but
            details have not been finalized yet.

         G. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE ACTIVITIES
            No report.
     H. OTHER AD-HOC TASK GROUP REPORTS
             1. C3PO AHTG
                  The next C3PO AHTG meeting is on Monday, March 9.
                  a. HMP Implementation Phase (HIP) Group
                  No report.
                  b. HMP In-stream Projects Work Group
                  No report.
             2. Trash AHTG
                  No report.
             3. Watershed Analysis AHTG
                  No report.

             4. AHTG Status Table

                 The AHTG Status Table is available on the SCVURPPP website.

    I.    OTHER BUSINESS
          1. External Meeting Summaries
            Jill reported that external meeting summaries are in the packet.

          2. Miscellaneous
            No items


F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\MC minutes 2-19-09final.doc
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                             6   February 19, 2009

    VIII. ADJOURN
          The meeting adjourned at 11:40 am.




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\MC minutes 2-19-09final.doc
                             Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
                                     Management Committee Meeting Action Items


                                          Action Items from February 19, 2009 Meeting

                                                                    None

                                        Action Items Remaining from Previous Meetings

Action                              Description                               Responsibility   Due Date     Status      Comments

12-07-1   Confer with the WMI Land Use Subgroup to determine a                Melody Tovar,     TBD       In progress
          “home” for Stream Protection, Restoration, and Erosion Forces       Trish Mulvey
          (SPREF) activities within the WMI.




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\Action Items 2-19-09 final.doc                         Page 1                                                   8/4/07
Santa Clara
Valley Urban                                                 Date/Time: March 12, 2009, 10 am - 2 pm
Runoff Pollution                                             Place: LWA, Davis (attended by phone)
Prevention Program
                                                             Who Attended: CASQA Board members,
                                                             including Jill Bicknell (Program staff)
CASQA Board of Directors
Meeting Summary


Board of Directors Meeting Highlights
•   The BOD reviewed and approved the 2008 Performance Review and the 2009 Scope and Budget for the
    Executive Director. Priorities for the ED’s time in 2009 include: updating the Strategic Plan for 2009;
    improved fiscal management; development of new and enhanced revenue sources; assisting the
    Conference Committee to plan and conduct a successful 2009 Conference; and membership promotion.
•   The BOD discussed CASQA’s advocacy stance regarding the brake pad legislation (SB346) and decided
    that they wanted to strongly support the legislation in a manner that did not conflict with CASQA’s
    501(c)(3) status. The BOD approved a motion to send a letter of support to legislators and the
    membership, and to partner with other organizations and provide technical support to their lobbying
    efforts.
•   The BOD approved requests from the Membership Committee for a new webcast product (limited site
    license) and revised refund policy for meetings and conferences. However, there was significant
    discussion regarding whether CASQA should explore selling advertising and/or sponsorship of its
    website to raise revenue to better support the website. Some Directors were in favor of “soft” advertising,
    i.e. listing corporate sponsors without specifying certain products; others were opposed to advertising of
    any kind due to the policies of their public agencies. The item was tabled to a future meeting.
•   The BOD received a report from the Training Subcommittee on the Construction General Permit training
    program. The reissued Construction General Permit is expected to require significantly more training and
    to prompt the need for a more formal training program in the state. CASQA has been participating with
    the State Board, private trainers, permittees, and others on a coordinating committee that has been
    brainstorming and collaborating on the development of such a statewide program since January 2008.
    Additionally, CASQA’s BMP Handbooks are considered a standard reference for such trainings. The
    State Board wants a “design oversight” role and wants a third party to take the lead on the training. The
    Subcommittee recommended that CASQA assume the lead role and develop training curriculum and a
    certification program for “Trainers of Record” that would then go out and conduct the trainings (a “train
    the trainer” approach). The State Board has some limited funding for start-up costs, but the certification
    program would need to be fee-based and self-sustaining. The BOD supported this approach in concept
    and directed the Subcommittee to develop a business plan for CASQA’s role in the training program.
•   Next meeting – May 14, GeoSyntec Consultants offices, Oakland
•   Next CASQA General Meeting: May 15, Waterfront Hotel, Jack London Square, Oakland
    Topic: “Stormwater as a Resource”




CASQA Board mtg summ 3-12-09                           1                                                3/13/09
March 10, 2009

To:    Jill Bicknell; SCVURPPP
       Vishakha Atre: SCVURPPP

From: Sandi Manor

Re:    FY 08-09 Watershed Watch Campaign
       February 2009 Activity


Task 1: Evaluation
      •    Reviewed survey topline results

Task 2: Creative Development
      • WW Brochure
              o Final changes, print-formatting and file transfers to the printer
              o Proof review and corrections
              o Print coordination

Task 3: Media
      • El Observador
             o “Litter” ad – 2 column x 5” black/white ad ran February 13 + 27

       •   KBAY Radio 94.5 FM
             o “Litter” :60 messages ran January 26-February1
             o 23 paid spots and 10 PSAS
             o “Planet KBAY” sponsorship (anti-litter tip co-branded with Watershed
                Watch)
             o
       •   KUFX Radio 98.5 FM
             o “Litter” :30 messages ran January 26-February 1
             o 22 paid spots

       •   KSJO Radio 92.3 FM (Spanish)
              o “Litter” :30 Spanish messages ran February 2-8
              o 50 paid spots (20 @ $1 ea.)
              o 57 streaming spots on KSJO.com

       •   Co-permittee funded media support
              o SVCN – provided tear sheets and invoicing to WVCWP, Cupertino
                 and Sunnyvale
              o Palo Alto RWQCP - provided tear sheets and invoicing; reconciled
                 missing payment from OneWorld Communications

Task 4: Partner Development & Coordination
      • Capitol Premier Car Wash
             o Confirmed participation as WW Partner for 2009 for events and
                 discounts
       •   Harv’s Car Wash
              o Contacted General Manager of Santa Clara location (left message)
              o Contacted Mountain View location, received referral to corporate
                  headquarters (fax)
              o Sent fax with partnership proposal

Task 5: Added Value Development
      • KUFX - Contacted representative for scheduling a car wash promotion
          planning meeting
      • KBAY - Web promotions; links / feature on KBAY Cares in support of radio
          campaign

Task 6: Web Maintenance
      • Form redevelopment
                Researched inundation of spam from Web Contact Forms
                Changed from HTML to PHP for added security and spam reduction
                Updated links and tracking
                Uploaded and testes
      • Web contact
                Followed up with City of San Jose regarding request to post events on
                WW website
      • Website Updates
                Home page
                    • Updated logos for WVCWP
                    • Updated event listings on home page
                Events
                    • Added new event(s)
                Resources
                    • Uploaded new brochure

Task 7: Event Coordination
      • Univision Radio
             o Discussion with rep regarding May events and media; proposal to
                come
      • Master Gardeners Spring Garden Market – April 4
             o Completed and submitted registration and $25 fee
      • Spring in Guadalupe Gardens – April 25
             o Completed and submitted registration and $95 fee

Task 9: FY 09-10 Work Plan Development
      • FY 09-10 Work Plan
             o Web redesign proposal review / comments
             o Media planning
                   • Comcast cable regarding request for proposal and “on-
                       demand”

Task 10: Meetings & Communications
      • Monthly reporting and ongoing communications with Program.
      • Attended February 2, 2009 WEO AHTG meeting at San Jose City Hall.
1                                                                        AdManor, Inc.                                                                 Partner Report
                                                                   Watershed Watch Campaign
                                                                       Fiscal Year '08-09




PARTNER                     CONTACT                    RESULTS
KUFX / KCNL / KSJO          Kevin Kimerer              Contacted regarding setting up a meeting with Capitol Premier Car Wash / event planning.
ClearChannel Radio          408-451-7663
                            kevinkimerer@clearchannel.com
Capitol Premier Car Wash    Chuck Brassfield           Confirmed (enthusiastic) participation in 2009 WW discounts and car wash events.
                            408-979-7811x12            Promotes an alternative to schools and charities for car wash fundraisers. Offers
                                                       a $3 Watershed Watch car wash discount.
KRTY / KLIV                 Jan Bell                   Promotes tips (provided by consultant) for desired actions as part of their Green editorial program.
Empire Broadcasting         408-961-0443               Will support Car Wash event(s) in 2009.
                            jbell@empirebroadcasting.coProvides 1:1 PSAs for each paid spot on both stations.
KEZR / KBAY                 Janna Hathaway             Distributed WW Discount Card at events and to visitors at the station.
                            janna@kbay-kezr.com        WW ad on KBAY Cares website.

Yamagami's Nursery          (Via KBAY)                   Offers 25% off monthly featured "Green" product with WW Discount Card, and
                                                         features WW on their website home page.
                                                         Planning to renew / continue WW card program.
Don Edwards SF Bay        Genie Moore                    SCVURPPP supports education at the Wildlife Refuge. WW refers individuals to the Refuge for
Wildlife Refuge at Alviso 408-262-5513 x100              volunteer opportunities and promotes events and activities at the Refuge.
                          Genie_Moore@fws.gov
Guadalupe River Park &    Phil Cornish            Submitted Spring In Guadalupe Gardens event registration form.
Gardens                   408-298-7657            Will request sponsorship status on the GRPG event web pages and media.
                          phil@grpg.org
Palo Alto Weekly          Connie Jo Cotton
Mountain View Voice       (650) 326-8210
                          ccotton@paweekly.com
SVCN                      Nancy Weigel            Provides discounted rates, including a non-profit/frequency rate and an upsize from the paid size.
(10 community newspapers) (408) 354-3110x23       Upgrades to color when available. Currently ads are paid directly by co-permittees.
                          nweigel@community-newspapers.com
El Observador Newspaper Angelica Rossi


The Wave Magazine           Janette Deuerling            Revised media schedule according to change in publication date for Summer Guide.


Classic Car Wash            Marty Jensen
(corporate)                 (408) 371-2414 x 216       Provides ongoing $4 discounts off car washes with the WW Discount Card.
                                                       Confirmed 2009 participation.
California's                Al Garcia                  PR / community affairs director agreed to continue the WW message on
Great America               (408) 986-5856             billboard during off-season months October - March.
                            al.garcia@cagreatamerica.com
Kelly Moore Paints          (via KBAY)                 Partnership via KBAY/KEZR, offers 20% off paints w/ WW Discount Card. Pending renewal for 2009.


Creek Connections           Sandra Freitas
Action Group                (408) 793-4190
                            Sandra.Freitas@sanjoseca.gov
Santa Clara County HHW      Rob D'Arcy
Program                     (408) 918-1967
(co-permittee)              Rob.Darcy@deh.sccgov.org
BASMAA                      Geoff Brosseau

                            geoff@brosseau.us
Childrens Discovery         Sandy Derby              CDM has education program for watershed and water pollution prevention; sponsors teams for
Museum                      (408) 298-5437x261       Creek Clean Up days.
                            sderby@cdm.org
Stevens & Permanente        Mondy Lariz              Websites linked; included in volunteer participation information
Creeks Watershed            (408) 356-8258
Council                     ed@spcwc.org
PlantSense                  Matt Glenn, CEO          Will donate 15 units per year ($59.99 each) to "help the community."
                            info@plantsense.com      Will collect these from them for the Green Gardener program graduates, or to use as prizes.
                            415-848-8957             (Garden Gro Sensor is the item, utilizing Plant Sense online/software)
San Jose Home & Garden      Alan Beim; ad agency for
Show                        World Class Events
World Class Events          650-359-5999
                            alan@adsthatwork.com     Received offer for free Feb show. Touched bases regarding options for Spring and Fall events.
Marketplace Events          Brandon                  Formerly DMG. Spoke with rep about SCVURPPP's goals and requested proposal
Santa Clara County H&G      brandonb@marketplaceeven including bag sponsorship opportunity and non-profit added-value.
Show
City of Palo Alto           Julie Weiss
RWQCP                       (650) 329-2117               Provided tearsheets and invoicing for PAWeekly/MtViewVoice ads; worked with OWC
(co-permittee)                                           (Julie's agency) to follow up on missing payment.
Happy Hollow Park & Zoo     Vanessa Rogier



AdManor, Inc.
(866) 444-2623                                                                                                                                                3/13/2009
2                                                                   AdManor, Inc.                                                           Partner Report
                                                              Watershed Watch Campaign
                                                                  Fiscal Year '08-09




                               (408) 277-3065
                               vanessa@bayarea.net   WW Discount Card on Zoo admission $2. Posted ewaste event on mywatershedwatch.org
Harv's Car Wash                Frank / owner         Left message for Joel Gonzales, GM of Santa Clara / Stevens Creek Blvd 408-247-9650x13
                               (916) 217-0185        Wrote letter / proposal and faxed to corporate HQ at 415-777-4105, regarding events at both
                                                     (or either) Mountain View and Santa Clara locations
Sunnyvale Car Wash             Steve                 Potential lead for car wash partnership / events in Sunnyvale.
(Shell)                        (949) 842-5645


Bold Italics indicate new activity




AdManor, Inc.
(866) 444-2623                                                                                                                                     3/13/2009
Watershed Watch Web Stats

Date      Avg.     Top pages                        No. of Top    Top Search         Most Downloaded           Contact       WW Kit        Comments
          Page                                      Pages         Engine             Pages                     Form          Requests
          Views/                                                  Referrals                                    Requests
          day
July 08   175      /description_Spanish.htm         English -5    Google             1. Public Participation
                   /description.htm                 Spanish – 5   (organic),         Opportunities             English – 4   English - 3
                   /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 senavirtual.edu.   2.Kids Guide              (+ 2 spam)    Spanish - 1
                   /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              co (referral)      3. WW Discount Card       Spanish – 0
                                                                                     4.Spring Workshop
                   / (home page)                                  learn.flvs.net
                                                                                     Brochure
                   /index_Spanish.htm                             (referral)         5.Good Bug Tub Fact
                   /Education_Sp.HTM                              9.36% direct       Sheet
                   /FAQ.htm                                       28.62 referral     6.Fleas IPM Fact Sheet
                   /index.htm                                     62.02% search      7.ZunZun Flyer
                   /index_IPM.htm                                 engines            8.Watch out for
                                                                                     mercury ad
                                                                                     9.IPM Fact sheet
                                                                                     Healthy Garden / Pests
                                                                                     10.Got Bulbs ad

August    155      /description_Spanish.htm         English -5    Google             1.Digital thermometer
08                 /description.htm                 Spanish – 5   (organic),         event PDF.                English – 2   English - 5
                   /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 learn.flvs.net,    2. Spring Workshop        (+ 4 spam)    Spanish - 1
                   /discount_card.htm                             senavirtual.edu.   Brochure                  Spanish – 1
                                                                                     3. WW Discount Card
                   / (home page)                                  co, yahoo
                                                                                     4. Public Participation
                   /index_Spanish.htm                                                Opportunities
                   /index.htm                                     Recap:             5. Kids Guide
                   /Education_Sp.HTM                              13.3% direct       6.Good Bug Tub FS
                   /Solutions.htm                                 21.62 referral     7.Pests IPM FS
                   /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              65.03% search      8.Green Gardener SP
                                                                  engines            9. cartoon
                                                                                     10. Aphids IPM FS
Sep 08    194      /description_Spanish.htm         English -5    Google             1.Good Bug Tub FS
                   /description.htm                 Spanish – 5   (organic),         2. Public Participation   English – 3   English - 7
                   /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 learn.flvs.net,    Opportunities             (spam)        (Russia)
                   /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              senavirtual.edu.                             Spanish – 0   Spanish - 1
Date     Avg.     Top pages                        No. of Top    Top Search          Most Downloaded           Contact       WW Kit        Comments
         Page                                      Pages         Engine              Pages                     Form          Requests
         Views/                                                  Referrals                                     Requests
         day
                  /   (home page)                                co                  3. Kids Guide
                  /important.htm                                 Recap:              4. Green Gardener SP
                  /index_Spanish.htm                             7.55% direct        fall postcard
                                                                 22.41 referral      5. Roses FS Spanish
                  /Education_Sp.HTM
                                                                                     6. Litter ad
                  /Education.htm                                 70% search
                                                                                     7. Yellow Jackets FS
                  /index_IPM.htm                                 engines             8. Zun Zun Flyer
                                                                                     9. Mercury/Business
                                                                                     flyer
                                                                                     10. WW Discount Card

Oct 08   200      /description_Spanish.htm         English -5    1. Google           1. Public Participation
                  /description.htm                 Spanish – 5   (organic)           Opportunities             English – 1   English - 3
                  /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 2. learn.flvs.net   2. Good Bug Tub FS        Spanish – 0   Spanish - 0
                  /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              3. (none/direct)    3. Kids Guide
                                                                                     4. Ants FS
                  / (home page)
                                                                                     5. Pests FS
                  /index_Spanish.htm                             Recap:              6. Fleas FS
                  /important.htm                                 7.25% direct        7. Cockroaches FS
                  /Education_Sp.HTM                              21.18% referral     8. Lawns FS
                  /FAQ.htm                                       71.53% search       9. Litter ad
                  /Education.htm                                 engines             10. Pesticides FS

Nov 08   219      /description_Spanish.htm         English -4    1. Google           1. Public Participation
                  /description.htm                 Spanish – 6   (organic)           Opportunities             English – 3   English - 0
                  /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 2. learn.flvs.net   2. Spring Workshop        Spanish – 1   Spanish - 0
                  /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              3. (none/direct)    3. Kids Guide
                                                                                     4. Pests FS
                  /important.htm
                                                                                     5. Roses Spanish FS
                  /index_Spanish.htm                             Recap:              6. WW general Ad
                  /important_Spanish.htm                         6.32% direct        7. Good Bug Tub FS
                  / (home page)                                  22.95% referral     8. Problem Pesticides
                  /FAQ.htm                                       70.73% search       FS
                  /Education_Sp.HTM                              engines             9. Ants FS
                                                                                     10. Pesticides ad
Date     Avg.     Top pages                        No. of Top    Top Search          Most Downloaded           Contact       WW Kit        Comments
         Page                                      Pages         Engine              Pages                     Form          Requests
         Views/                                                  Referrals                                     Requests
         day
Dec 08   153      /description.htm                 English -4    1. Google           1. Public Participation
                  /description_Spanish.htm         Spanish – 6   (organic)           Opportunities             English – 2   English - 1
                  /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 2. learn.flvs.net   2. Spring Workshop        Spanish – 1   Spanish - 1
                  /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              3. (none/direct)    3. Kids Guide
                                                                                     4. Got Bulbs Ad
                  /FAQ.htm
                                                                                     5. Problem Pesticides
                  / (home page)                                  Recap:              FS
                  /important.htm                                 9.08% direct        6. Pests FS
                  /index_Spanish.htm                             33.9% referral      7. Spiders FS
                  /Education_Sp.HTM                              56.99% search       8. Business Mercury
                  /important_Spanish.htm                         engines             article
                                                                                     9. Yellow Jackets FS
                                                                                     10. Good Bug Tub FS

Jan 09   205      /description_Spanish.htm         English -6    1. Google           1. Public Participation
                  /description.htm                 Spanish – 4   (organic)           Opportunities             English – 1   English - 5
                  /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 2. learn.flvs.net   2. IPM Newsletter         Spanish – 0   Spanish - 0
                  / (home page)                                  3. (none/direct)    Article
                                                                                     3. Clean it guide
                  /IPM_Index_Sp.htm
                                                                                     4. Spring workshop bro
                  /important_Spanish.htm                         Recap:              5. Spring 2009 GG
                  /important.htm                                 11.15% direct       class flyer
                  /index.htm                                     21.24% referral     6. Weeds FS
                  /FAQ.htm                                       67.61% search       7. Paint ad
                  /Education.HTM                                 engines             8. Litter ad
                                                                                     9. 2008 Solutions
                                                                                     Brochure
                                                                                     10. Kids Guide
Feb 09   330      /description_Spanish.htm         English -4    1. Google           1. IPM Newsletter
                  /description.htm                 Spanish – 6   (organic)           Article                   English – 1   English - 1
                  /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.htm                 2. learn.flvs.net   2. Spring 2009 GG         Spanish – 0   Spanish - 0
                  /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                              3. (none/direct)    class flyer
                                                                                     3. Public Participation
                  /important_Spanish.htm
                                                                                     Opportunities
                  / (home page)                                  Recap:              4. Paint ad
                  /index_Spanish.htm                             8.43% direct        5. Spring 2009 GG
                  /Education_Sp.HTM                              19.71% referral     class flyer Spanish
Date   Avg.     Top pages        No. of Top   Top Search      Most Downloaded       Contact    WW Kit     Comments
       Page                      Pages        Engine          Pages                 Form       Requests
       Views/                                 Referrals                             Requests
       day
                /important.htm                71.85% search   6. Weeds FS
                /prevent.htm                  engines         7. Roses FS Spanish
                                                              8. Mercury Bulbs
                                                              Business Flyer
                                                              9. Spring Workshop
                                                              (Watershed Project)
                                                              Brochure
                                                              10. Ants FS
                                                                          land use             subgroup

                          DRAFT Land Use Subgroup Conference Call Highlights

March 4, 2009

Attending
Fernando Bravo                           City of Milpitas
Carrie Jensen                            HT Harvey and Associates
Matt Krupp                               City of San Jose, ESD
Kristy McCumby                           City of Sunnyvale
Trish Mulvey                             CLEAN South Bay
Laura Prickett                           Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
Junko Vroman                             City of San Jose, ESD
Yves Zsutty                              City of San Jose, PRNS

Action Items
    Conference call attendees will sign up as beta reviewers to review the Water District’s draft
    Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
    Laura will request input from SCVURPPP’s C3PO Ad Hoc Task Group regarding a possible future
    green building/stormwater workshop and tour of Roosevelt Community Center.
    Laura will provide the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program “Green Streets and
    Parking Lots Design Guidebook” link (http://www.flowstobay.org/ms_sustainable_streets.php).
    Matt will follow up with Melody regarding green streets and the possibility of a future presentation
    from SFEP green infill staff.

Announcements
   Junko reported on a meeting of the Focus Group for Comprehensive Water Resources Management
   Plan, at which attendees were offered an opportunity to be “beta reviewers” of the Water District’s
   draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, which is intended to be comparable to
   municipal general plans. Trish emailed to LUS conference call attendees a link so that LUS attendees
   can also review this beta version of the document and suggested that LUS conference call attendees
   encourage colleagues to also sign up as beta reviewers.

Green Street Retrofits
Matt reported on communication with staff from Montgomery County, Maryland. This is a suburban and
rural county in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that has a municipal stormwater permit that requires
retrofitting of existing impervious surface to restore perviousness and provide stormwater treatment. Matt
has also been talking with Jennifer Krebs of the San Francisco Estuary Project regarding the SFEP’s Green
Infill Program, and the possibility of collaborating with the LUS on a future green infill presentation, either
at a LUS meeting or another venue. Some municipalities are concerned about green streets due to
maintenance requirements.

Possible Green Building-Stormwater Workshop and Tour
Laura presented a draft outline of a potential workshop on earning LEED green building credits with
sustainable stormwater management, combined with a and tour of San Jose’s new Roosevelt Community
Center (a building with pending LEED certification that has interesting water education and LID features).
Conference call attendees wondered about the timing of the workshop, how much time municipal staff have
for training given difficult economic times, and whether the C3PO Ad Hoc Task Group would want to
include the presentation and/or tour in the annual C.3 workshop.

Next Meeting
April 8 conference call




                                                                                                        Page 1
Santa Clara
                                                               Date/Time: March 9, 2009, 1:30-3:15 pm
Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution                                               Place: Cupertino City Hall, Conf. Rm. 100
Prevention Program                                             Who Attended: Jared Hart, Michael Rhoades,
                                                               Rich Buikema, Ryan Do, Christine Mohanna (San
                                                               Jose), Michelle Bocalan (Los Altos); Kristy
                                                               McCumby-Hyland (Sunnyvale); Genevieve Fire
                                                               (Consultant for Cupertino); Cheri Donnelly,
                                                               Miranda Hung (Cupertino), Karla Traynor Smith
                                                                (Stanford University), Joe Teresi (Palo
                                                               Alto), Clara Spaulding (County of Santa Clara),
C3 Provision Oversight AHTG                                    Patrick Hansen, Kelly Carroll (WVCWP), Tiffany
Meeting Summary Report                                         Brown, Fernando Bravo, Kathleen Phalen
                                                               (Milpitas), Trang Tu Nguyen (Los Gatos), Mike
                                                               Campbell (HMH), Jill Bicknell, Laura Prickett,
                                                               Vishakha Atre (SCVURPPP)




    Key Issues Discussed:
    Announcements
    Jill distributed copies of the SCVURPPP Site Design Awards announcement and requested
    AHTG members to distribute it to agency staff and the developer community. Award applications
    are due by May 1, 2009. Since an award ceremony was not organized last year, the Program may
    organize a combined award ceremony for winners of the 2008 and 2009 Site Design Awards.

    Workshop Update
    Jill informed the AHTG that the Rural Roads Maintenance BMP Workshops are from March 23
    to March 25. The in-class workshop is on March 23 and the in-field workshops are on March 24
    and March 25 (same workshop on both days).
    Municipal Regional Permit Update
    Jill informed the AHTG that the Revised Tentative Order MRP has been issued. Comments are
    due by April 3 and the public hearing is on May 13. The MRP could be adopted as early as May
    or June. She said that the Program and Co-permittees had submitted comments on the previous
    MRP draft, some of which have been addressed in this draft. BASMAA is having meetings to
    discuss how the remaining comments should be addressed. Program staff are attending these
    meetings and will keep everyone updated. Jill distributed copies of tables describing Provisions
    C.3. and C.6., and provided an overview of issues addressed, issues remaining, and new issues.
    Attendees provided feedback on issues of concern. Jill said that she will update the tables to
    include their concerns and email them to everyone.

    The Program will be submitting comments on the MRP and Jill asked Co-permittees to also
    submit comments. She will email them the Program’s draft comment letter by March 13.

    Low Impact Development (LID) Workshop

    Laura reported on the LID workshop organized by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission.
    Day One of the workshop focused on bioretention and Day Two emphasized permeable paving.
    Laura presented the following highlights from the workshops:


F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\C3PO AHTG min 3-9-09 final.doc1
•   The presenters recommended that agencies avoid the use of underdrains where feasible. They
    are concerned about; 1) flows moving too quickly to the underdrain, 2) the possibility that
    dissolved metals and emerging pollutants may not be adequately treated, and 3) the
    possibility that even if peak post-development flows match pre-development peak flows, an
    overall increase in volume may degrade creek habitat.
•   Geotextiles are not recommended at the interface between bioretention soils and native soils.
    Fine particles can migrate through geotextiles and result in clogging problems.
•   Recommended a 1-foot vertical separation between the base of a bioretention area and the
    seasonally high groundwater table for bioretention areas with smaller contributing areas. A 3-
    foot separation is advised for larger contributing areas.
•   The presenters said that the lifespan of pervious asphalt and pervious concrete is comparable
    to the lifespan of standard asphalt and standard concrete, respectively. If contractors have
    been properly trained, the installation of pervious concrete is not more difficult than installing
    regular concrete. In the Seattle area, the cost of pervious concrete construction is roughly the
    same as that of traditional concrete.
•   The presenters recommended vacuuming rather than pressure washing for cleaning pervious
    paving.
AHTG members requested Laura to email them the presentation and her notes.

C.3. Workshop

Jill asked AHTG members for input on topics for the Annual C.3. workshop. She said that the Program is
also planning a workshop on Sustainable Streets in coordination with the San Mateo Countywide Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP). The workshop will be based on SMCWPPP’s Sustainable
Streets Manual. Jill asked AHTG members whether this half-day workshop should be combined with the
C.3.workshop. AHTG members showed interest in this workshop and recommended that the two
workshops should not be combined.

AHTG members provided the following input on topics for the C.3. Workshop:
• Have the workshop at San Jose’s Roosevelt Community Center where a number of stormwater
  treatment measures have been integrated into the design. Offer tours to attendees.
• Have two workshop tracks, one with basic information on C.3. requirements (for staff that are new to
  this topic), and the other with more technical information. The technical track could include a
  discussion on LEED standards, Green Building standards, and stormwater requirements. The WMI
  Land Use Subgroup is planning a workshop on this topic and it could be combined with the C.3.
  workshop
• Focus mainly on planning issues. Include topics that will be of interest to engineers. Many agencies
  are finding that engineers need to be involved in the planning process.
Action Items:
Program staff will e-mail the Site Design Awards flyer, the updated C.3 and C.6 tables, and the LID
Workshop Summary and Presentation to the AHTG.
Next Meeting
April 27, 2009




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\C3PO AHTG min 3-9-09 final.doc2
Dioxin Meeting Minutes September 18, 2008 1 of 4


                                      RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting
                                           September 18th, 2008
                                      San Francisco Estuary Institute
                                          Final Meeting Minutes

Attendees:
Bridgette DeShields (Arcadis/WSPA)                            Rod Miller (SFPUC/BACWA)
Eric Dunlavey (City of San Jose)                              Tom Mumley (SFWQCB)
Tom Hall (South Bay Dischargers (EOA))                        Naomi Feger (SFWQCB)
Francois Rodigari (EBMUD/BACWA)                               Bill Johnson (SFWQCB)
Luisa Valiela (US EPA)                                        Susan Klosterhaus (SFEI)
Bhupinder Dhaliwal (CCCSD/BACWA)                              Lester McKee (SFEI)
Barbara Baginska (SFWQCB)                                     John Oram (SFEI)
Kevin Buchan (WSPA)                                           Meg Sedlak (SFEI)
Jon Konnan (BASMAA)                                           Don Yee (SFEI)
Michele Pla (BACWA)                                           Mike Connor (SFEI)

Introductions and Goals of Meeting

Meg Sedlak reviewed the objectives of the meeting which included reaching consensus among
key stakeholders on a monitoring strategy that would support management decisions for dioxin
by the Regional Board (e.g., TMDL or variances).

Review of Existing Dioxin Data and Background on Existing RMP Monitoring

Susan Klosterhaus reviewed the existing data on dioxins in San Francisco Bay, most of which
was reported in the Conceptual Model/Impact Assessment document for dioxins in San
Francisco Bay prepared by Connor et al. in 2005. Very little data is available, with the most data
available for sport fish tissue. Susan also provided a brief overview of current RMP monitoring
program to provide a context for potential opportunities to obtain additional dioxin data by
augmenting existing sample collection efforts.

Jon Konnan noted that BASMAA has made addressing dioxins a low priority because dioxin
analysis is difficult and expensive and about 75% of the dioxin-like toxicity in fish is due to
dioxin-like PCBs, which is being addressed through the PCB TMDL. Jon also said that
BASMAA is aware that development of a dioxin water quality attainment strategy (WQAS) is
desirable to BACWA because that would increase the likelihood that future municipal
wastewater treatment facility NPDES permits will have reasonable numeric dioxins limits.

In response to Jon’s comments, Tom Mumley agreed that SFRWCB staff did not place dioxins
as a high priority during most of the last decade. Staff opposed the original 303(d) listing and
until recently did not plan to develop a WQAS such as a TMDL. Tom stated that addressing
dioxin-like PCBs through the PCB TMDL would not be sufficient to fully address the dioxins
impairment. He added that they found reasonable potential for dioxin and added it to the NPDES
permits as a result. Tom believes that a delisting for dioxin would not be feasible and that the
best option is to develop a WQAS such as a TMDL. He added that a TMDL is the first step
towards a long-term solution because it will improve our understanding of dioxin in the Bay, by


S:\RMP Documents\Strategies\Dioxin_Strategy\RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting Minutes Final.doc
Dioxin Meeting Minutes September 18, 2008 2 of 4


way of more data collection. The key to effective source control will be an understanding of the
relative contribution of dioxin loadings. Tom noted that if a WQAS is not developed by local
agencies, USEPA would likely develop a TMDL and the local agencies would have relatively
little control over the process. He encouraged a collaborative effort among all agencies to
resolve the issue since this is an issue beyond the realm of the RMP. Tom noted that Regional
Board staff chose not to include dioxin provisions in the draft stormwater dischargers NPDES
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) but that could change in future versions if there is not
progress on moving towards the development of a dioxin WQAS. Jon noted that since dioxin-
related activities won’t help with MRP compliance and resources are limited it is difficult for
BASMAA agencies to place a high priority on a dioxin WQAS. However, Jon acknowledged
that BASMAA may need to consider accepting some reasonable level of additional dioxin-
related monitoring through the RMP. Jon stated that he could not give BASMAA’s buy-in to a
scope and budget at today’s meeting and noted that BASMAA agency budgets are very uncertain
while the MRP is still being negotiated.

It was generally agreed that the dioxin issue for the Bay needs to involve more than the RMP for
several reasons including the limited financial resources of the RMP. Tom Mumley, Michele Pla,
and Mike Connor plan to discuss options for a collaborative, regional strategy with EPA and
CARB. Luisa Valiela noted that the EPA’s dioxin re-assessment remains uncertain.

Questions and Strategy Overview

Susan Klosterhaus presented the proposed questions that the strategy will attempt to answer and
an overview of a proposed data collection strategy for the next five years. She solicited feedback
and consensus on the questions and asked for input on questions considered to be of highest
priority by the group.

The proposed strategy questions were:

1. Are the beneficial uses of the Bay impaired by dioxins?
2. What is the spatial pattern of dioxin impairment?
3. What is the dioxin reservoir in Bay sediments and water?
4. Have dioxin loadings/concentrations changed over time?
5. What is the relative contribution of each loading pathway as a source of dioxin impairment in
the Bay?
6. What future impairment is predicted for dioxins in the Bay?

The group agreed that addressing questions #3 and #5 should receive the highest priority and that
question #2 was a lower priority question. Question #3 would help determine if erosion of
sediments would expose sediment beneath the surface that contain higher concentrations of
dioxins and whether or not this is a significant pathway compared to other external loading
pathways. Question #5 would provide information on the relative loadings of dioxin from
external pathways (e.g. stormwater runoff vs. atmospheric deposition). Answers to questions #3,
#4, and #5 are needed to answer #6. The group agreed that these six questions captured the
information needs and should be included in the strategy.




S:\RMP Documents\Strategies\Dioxin_Strategy\RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting Minutes Final.doc
Dioxin Meeting Minutes September 18, 2008 3 of 4


It was pointed out that difficulties with analytical QA/QC are anticipated. For example, some
results are likely to be estimated concentrations (J-flagged). Michele Pla and Rod Miller stressed
that they would like to conduct a review of data collection and management methods so that the
strategy is consistent with National Functional Guidelines. Bhupinder Dhaliwal and Rod Miller
also stressed the need for a laboratory calibration process to insure the data is the best quality
possible.

Sampling Design Elements
A short overview of each sampling design element and it’s relevance to the questions was
presented by SFEI staff. Feedback on each sampling element was solicited. Sampling elements
included tributary loadings, Bay surface water, sediment cores, surface sediment, sport fish, bird
eggs, atmospheric deposition, a one-box model, and a foodweb model.

Sport fish
There was concern over whether shiner surfperch and white croaker are the appropriate species
to focus on in the strategy. Tom Mumley commented that it has been established that many
people eat shiner surfperch. While many people catch striped bass, these are relatively low in
dioxin. Michele Pla requested an evaluation of the use of additional species.

Bird eggs
Tom Mumley indicated that bird eggs were not a high priority, but it would be good to keep
them in the strategy and to evaluate at some future point whether they should be included.. The
RMP will continue to collect egg samples for the archives to support future analyses.

Surface sediment
Tom Mumley and Michele Pla suggested analyzing surface sediment every year. This
information is needed to calculate bioaccumulation factors for the fish. It was generally agreed to
analyze surface sediment every year from 2008-2011 and to re-evaluate whether or not to
continue analysis when that is complete. Sediments will be collected for the archives for
potential future analysis of dioxin.

Surface water
The group agreed that surface water should be analyzed in 2009 and 2011.

Sediment cores
Mike Connor recommended that we analyze the wetland cores rather than the in-bay cores to
address the atmospheric deposition component. Meg noted that the RMP plans to collect cores
every few years. The group agreed to analyze the current set of cores for dioxin and re-evaluate
the need for future core data based on the first round of results.

Small tributaries
Jon K. mentioned the need for small tributary loading work to coordinate with the Small
Tributaries Loading Strategy that is under development. It was generally agreed to proceed with
the 2009 plan and re-evaluate the need for future analysis based on the first year results.




S:\RMP Documents\Strategies\Dioxin_Strategy\RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting Minutes Final.doc
Dioxin Meeting Minutes September 18, 2008 4 of 4


Atmospheric deposition
Jon K said that understanding dioxin loading via atmospheric deposition is a priority for
BASMAA. This would include understanding how much of the stormwater load is due to
deposition onto local watersheds and identifying the associated "true" sources. A need was
expressed to increase the budget for this component to obtain a better estimate. Tom Mumley
noted that the updated estimate is not likely to be smaller than the previous estimate; it may
perhaps be larger. SFEI will work with CARB to develop an updated estimate of dioxin
deposition to the Bay using CARB ambient air data and any other information available. Michele
Pla indicated that BACWA may be able to contribute $75,000-$150,000; however this is
dependent on the completion of the multi-box model (June 2009 at the earliest). Mike Connor
suggested working on a grant proposal to do a larger, more in-depth study.

Food web model
It was agreed by the group that the foodweb model development should be pushed back to 2010
or later when more data has been acquired.

One-box model
It was agreed by the group that the one-box model development should be pushed back to 2010
or later when more data has been acquired.

QA/QC Inter-laboratory Comparison
Francois Rodigari and Bhupinder Dhaliwal stated that it is important to determine how data
variability will affect data quality. Francois noted that an inter-lab comparison exercise will cost
more than the $25,000 currently allotted for this component. SFEI will work with the BACWA
lab committee to determine the appropriate steps for addressing this issue.


Budget and Funding

The proposed budget for the five year strategy was ~$750,000 or about ~$150,000/year.
Approximately $114,000 of RMP funds have already tentatively been reserved in 2008 to
implement most of year one of the strategy by adding dioxin analysis to existing surface
sediment collection and sediment core samples recently collected as part of the work to develop
the PCB TMDL. However, funding for the 2009 work is $120,000 short of the proposed amount
needed. Budgeting for 2010 and beyond will be discussed at a future date. The group recognized
that the scope of the proposed strategy is likely too extensive to be funded solely through the
RMP. Tom Mumley stated that the proposed strategy does not include all of the tasks necessary
to fully develop a WQAS. Michele Pla indicated BACWA might be willing to provide some
supplemental funding ($75,000-$150,000), but would prefer to see funding via USEPA grants.
Luisa V. noted that federal grant money cannot be used for TMDL development. Mike Connor
suggested development of a grant strategy with a larger group such as the EPA. Other potential
funding sources discussed included Caltrans and remaining Clean Estuary Partnership funds.

The group agreed to reconvene in a year or so to evaluate new dioxin data and review the status
of developing the dioxin WQAS/TMDL. Mike Connor suggested meeting with EPA (perhaps
Alexis Strauss) and BACWA to develop a grant proposal strategy.



S:\RMP Documents\Strategies\Dioxin_Strategy\RMP Dioxin Strategy Meeting Minutes Final.doc
Santa Clara
                                                          Date/Time: January 26, 2009, 1:30- 3:00
Valley Urban
                                                          Place: Teleconference
Runoff Pollution
                                                          Who Attended: Geoff Brosseau (CASQA),
Prevention Program                                    Arleen Feng (ACCWP), Tom Hall (SCVURPPP),
                                                      Kelly Moran (TDC Environmental, LLC), Lisa Carlson
                                                      & Seth Carr (City of Los Angeles), Ruth Kolb (City of
CASQA BPP Work Group                                  San Diego), Anita Kuhlman (City of Camarillo),
                                                      Richard Boone (Orange County), Richard Watson ( )
Meeting Summary Report


Key Issues Discussed:

Legislation Process/Schedule – Justin Malan of Price Consulting (BPP legislative lobbyist) is still
contacting potential legislators about sponsoring the BPP legislation. Two potential sponsors. Final bill
language needs to be provided to Justin on Jan. 27th. Agencies are continuing to get their lobbyists
informed about and committed to supporting the BPP legislative effort. {Note: final version of proposed
legislative language released 1/29/09} Language needs to be submitted to Legislative Counsel’s Office
by end of January. Staff there will edit the language into “bill language.” Bills are typically introduced
the end of February.

BPP Legislative Proposal – Reviewed language agreed upon by the Steering Committee Jan. 25th on fees
per brake pad, use of fees, mechanisms for distribution and allocation of fees, copper content
certification, and enforcement. Manufacturers appear willing to agree to inclusion of “due diligence”
language regarding brake friction materials that will be used to replace copper. Want substitute materials
to be less harmful to public health and the environment. Threshold increase of over 50% in other
constituents such as nickel would trigger DTSC studies to determine the need to limit those constituents.

Next Meeting- The next regular CASQA BPP Work Group meeting (conference call) is scheduled for
Thursday February 19, 2009 from 10:00 to noon.




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\CASQA BPP Work Group 012609.doc
Santa Clara
                                                             Location: Teleconference
Valley Urban                                                 Date/Time: February 10, 2009
                                                             Who Attended: Jon Konnan (BASMAA);
Runoff Pollution                                             Jay Davis, Jen Hunt (SFEI); Karen
Prevention Program                                           Taberski (Regional Water Board); Margy
                                                             Gassel, Robert Brodberg (OEHHA); Rusty
                                                             Fairey (MLML); Peter LaCivita (USACE);
        RMP 2009 Sport Fish Sampling                         and others.
              Teleconference

            Meeting Summary Report


The RMP collects and analyzes sport fish tissue samples every three years. This work group
held a teleconference to discuss outstanding issues and finalize the budget and sampling plan
for the upcoming 2009 episode. The meeting was chaired by Jen Hunt of SFEI.

Key Issues Discussed:

o   Bob Brodberg asked about the RMP Dioxin Strategy and asked if the 2009 fish dioxin
    analyses were for OEHHA to develop consumption guidelines. He explained that OEHHA is
    not planning any consumption advisories based on dioxin levels in fish. Jay Davis
    responded that the Dioxin Strategy was designed to help answer management questions for
    the planned development of a dioxin TMDL. Jon Konnan noted that the Bay is listed as
    impaired by dioxins. The Dioxin Strategy will inform development of a local plan to address
    dioxins in the Bay rather than waiting for USEPA to develop a TMDL, and such a plan is
    desirable to wastewater treatment plants to help avoid unreasonable numeric dioxin limits in
    their future NPDES permits. It is basically a plan for dioxin monitoring by the RMP over the
    next five years.

o   White croaker has historically been analyzed skin-on by the RMP. The Surface Water
    Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) will be analyzing white croaker skin-off in their
    upcoming survey of the California Coast. To be comparable to the SWAMP program SFEI
    is recommending performing a side-by-side analysis of skin-on and skin-off analysis of white
    croaker using existing data or by gathering new data. The group discussed existing data on
    this topic but it appears insufficient to address the question and agreed to move forward with
    the 2009 skin-on/off analysis of white croaker if some new data from Moss Landing Marine
    Laboratory (MLML) prove insufficient to build a predictive relationship.

o   The Regional Board is currently developing a TMDL for selenium in the North Bay.
    Historically white sturgeon has been the primary indicator of selenium levels in fish. SFEI
    and MLML are looking into options for non-lethal sampling of white sturgeon and are
    recommending that three different tissue preparations (muscle fillet, muscle biopsy, and
    liver) be analyzed to compare fillets and biopsies and to compare liver selenium levels to
    established thresholds and inform TMDL development. Jon Konnan noted that selenium is
    low priority for BASMAA but BASMAA probably won't object to the selenium analysis if it
    stays below approximately 5% of the overall budget. Jon noted that BASMAA probably
    would not support directing a large amount of RMP resources towards selenium analysis in
    the future.


F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\RMP sport fish feb 2009 summary.doc
                                                         1
o   At the November 2008 meeting, the work group discussed discontinuing organic
    contaminant analysis of white sturgeon pending the outcome of the research on non-lethal
    sampling of this species. However, since white sturgeon will be sacrificed in 2009 to further
    investigate non-lethal sampling methods, SFEI and OEHHA recommended continuing
    organic analysis of white sturgeon tissue during 2009, to continue the time series on this
    type of data. The group agreed to this.

o   The RMP has been pilot testing analyzing striped bass otoliths (structures in fish inner ears)
    to determine striped bass life history and potentially help explain mercury exposure and
    bioaccumulation on temporal and spatial scales. The group agreed that striped bass otoliths
    should be archived during 2009 for potential future analysis, especially if there is a more
    regional effort to collect striped bass. Bob Brodberg questioned whether striped bass is the
    best mercury indicator for the Bay since it is a highly mobile species and noted that future
    analysis of otolith data could help answer this question.

o   Jon Konnan requested that the sampling plan replace ‘Regional Board’ with ‘RMP’ with
    respect to a reference on moving towards non-lethal sampling of white sturgeon, reflecting
    the collaborative nature of the RMP.

o   Jon Konnan asked why the project budget increased since the November 2008 meeting.
    SFEI explained that the November budget including some cost savings from SWAMP
    performing data analysis and report writing for the 2009 Bay sampling effort. However, the
    additional recommended analyses describe above (e.g., skin-on/off) have increased the
    costs so that the originally allocated budget of $254K would be fully used in 2009.

o   The work group approved the 2009 sampling plan and budget.

Action Items for Management Committee:
Information only.




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\RMP sport fish feb 2009 summary.doc
                                                         2
    Santa Clara

    Valley Urban

    Runoff Pollution                                                   Meeting: Regional Water Board Hearing
                                                                       Location: State building
    Prevention Program                                                 Date/Time: February 11, 2009
                                                                       Who Attended: Jon Konnan (SCVURPPP);
                                                                       Regional Water Board members; Richard
           Regional Water Board Hearing                                Looker, Tom Mumley, Bruce Wolfe (RWB
    (Consideration of Staff Recommendations for                        staff); Leslie Estes (Oakland); Dave Lewis
               303(d) List Revisions)                                  (Save the Bay); and many others.

                 Meeting Summary Report


The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) held its
monthly hearing. Only agenda item No. 6 (Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions for the San
Francisco Bay Region - Proposed Revisions to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters - Hearing to Consider Recommendations for Proposed Revisions) is summarized
below.

Key Issues Discussed:

o   Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that States identify and list waters within the State for which
    water quality standards are not attained. Richard Looker presented staff's recommendations for
    revisions to this "303(d) list." The majority of staff's recommended listings were for impairment by
    trash (26 new trash listings - 24 creeks and 2 shoreline areas). New pollutant listings (other than
    trash) for creeks included Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, Codornices Creek (Alameda
    County), Mt. Diablo Creek, Kirker Creek (Contra Costa County), Stevens Creek, Permanente
    Creek (Santa Clara County), San Mateo Creek (San Mateo County), and Suisun Creek (Solano
    County). Associated pollutants for these creeks other than trash included sediment toxicity,
    pyrethroids, mercury, selenium, temperature, pathogens and low dissolved oxygen. Staff also
    recommended delisting three San Francisco Bay segments for nickel.

o   Based on comments (26 comment letters submitted during the comment period and comments
    made by Board members and the public during the January testimony hearing) received on staff's
    initial recommendations (released October 2008), staff prepared responses to comments that
    included recommending a few changes related to water bodies outside of the SCVURPPP's
    jurisdiction:
    o Alameda Creek trash listing should have been Old Alameda Creek.
    o San Leandro Creek - hexavalent chromium listing cancelled.
    o Kirker Creek - added water toxicity in addition to pyrethroids.

o   Dave Lewis stated that the proposed listings are well supported and the staff responses to
    comments are clear. According to Mr. Lewis, the comments often constituted a denial of the
    problem and were not credible, especially since they didn't offer alternative solutions. In his
    opinion inclusion of creeks on the "Monitoring List" and voluntary efforts have not worked for trash.
    The listing, on the other hand, would show a violation of the Clean Water Act and the need for
    action. The listing would also raise the profile of the trash problem and public awareness, and
    help with funding procurement.

    F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\feb 2009 RWB hearing 303d list scvurppp summary.doc
                                                                1
o   Leslie Estes stated that the proposed listing of Sausal Creek for trash is based on one site in the
    creek where trash was previously repeatedly illegally dumped. Two other upstream creek sites
    assessed for trash had low levels. The dumping site has been addressed via barriers and
    outreach and is no longer a problem. Oakland is concerned that the listing would potentially hurt
    future chances of obtaining grant funding for creek restoration. Board member Singh was in favor
    of not listing this creek for trash, but staff and other Board members stated that they did not want
    to deviate from the listing protocol by considering data collected after February 2007. However,
    Board members and staff were sympathetic to the situation and offered to help try and find a work-
    around and provide support related to any fund raising issues, if needed. Board member Moore
    suggested that only lower part of Sausal creek is impaired and Bruce Wolfe suggested that
    segmenting the upper vs. lower creek might make sense and could be looked into before this
    matter goes before the State Board. Board member McGrath requested that staff gather current
    evidence on the dumping/impairment location. Board member Young asked whether the State
    Board should consider accepting more current evidence as a work around.

o   Board member McGrath stated that the trash impairment is definite and supports moving forward
    using three tools: cultural changes, economic consequences (enforcement), and structural
    methods.

o   Board member Moore commended staff and supports the recommended listings. He stated that
    the economic consequences of trash abatement were a typical comment but this was already
    addressed via establishment of the water quality objective (e.g., narrative prohibitions in Basin
    Plan on floating and settleable materials). He agreed with Dave Lewis that the comments were
    not credible and stated they were a distraction.

o   Board member Singh stated some comments were credible (e.g., Leslie Estes) and should not be
    dismissed even if some were not.

o   Board member Young stated she supports the recommended listings and commended staff. She
    stated that we all feel bad about 2-year time lag since the listing data were submitted and would
    like to see improvement on this issue in the future. She also noted that now that we have a
    protocol for listing trash staff needs to develop a protocol for de-listing.

o   Board member Muller stated that he supports the recommended listings and opined they are a
    good start for the trash world.

o   Board member Young stated she would like to see benchmarks for PBDEs and associated listing
    if they are exceeded. Board member Moore stated that if concentrations continue to increase
    could list based on anti-degradation, even without any benchmarks.

o   The Board approved the staff recommendations for the 303(d) list revisions unanimously except
    that Board member Singh abstained.

Action Items for Management Committee:
Send a letter to the State Board at the time they will be considering approval of the Regional Water
Board's recommendations for Bay Area 303(d) listings. Issues discussed in the letter should include
segmenting (e.g., only listing relevant creek reaches rather than entire creeks) and using current data,
as raised in the SCVURPPP's previous comments. The letter should possibly also question the
notion that economics were originally considered in establishing the Basin Plan narrative prohibitions
related to trash.



F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\feb 2009 RWB hearing 303d list scvurppp summary.doc
                                                              2
Santa Clara
                                                           Date/Time: February 19, 2009, 10:00-12:00
Valley Urban
                                                           Place: Teleconference
Runoff Pollution
                                                           Who Attended: Geoff Brosseau (CASQA),
Prevention Program                                     Arleen Feng (ACCWP), Tom Hall (SCVURPPP),
                                                       Kelly Moran (TDC Environmental, LLC), Lisa Carlson
                                                       & Seth Carr (City of Los Angeles), Anita Kuhlman
CASQA BPP Work Group                                   (City of Camarillo), Richard Boone (Orange County),
                                                       Richard Watson ( )
Meeting Summary Report


Key Issues Discussed:

Legislation Process/Schedule – State Senator Kehoe of San Diego has agreed to sponsor the BPP
legislation. She is the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Expect language from Legislative
Counsel’s Office within a few days and the actual bill to be introduced before the end of February. Bill
number will be circulated as soon as it’s available to allowing tracking its progress. First committee
hearing not until early March. Expect bill to go to Senate Environmental Quality Committee first. Need
to develop quick response process (< 24 hours) for the BPP team to be able to react to changes in the
legislation as it occurs. May need to go to twice monthly BPP conference calls April – August.

BPP Legislative Proposal – No new concerns raised. Once potential supporters get a bill number and see
the bill language, more of them will get engaged. Working to get southern CA NGO support. CASQA
Board will next meet March 12th and decide on the type/level of advocacy to provide for Kehoe and the
BPP bill. Would like to get support from San Jose, SCVWD, and SCVURPPP (Geoff will contact these
entities plus other Bay Area stormwater programs. BPP will prepare model support letter for the
legislation.

Misc. Updates – Sustainable Conservation has updated their website. Need to check that the link to BPP
from the SCVURPPP website still works. New staff person Stacey Sullivan hired 2/17/09. Funding
continues to trickle in. Need to remind cities that it is much cheaper to contribute to BPP now that to do
some other type of copper control measure in the future.

Next Meeting- The next regular CASQA BPP Work Group meeting (conference call) is scheduled for
Thursday March 19, 2009 from 10:00 to noon.




F:\SC\SC90\MC\0309\CASQA BPP Work Group 021909.doc
SENATE BILL                                                   No. 346


                   Introduced by Senator Kehoe


                          February 25, 2009



  An act to add Article 13.5 (commencing with Section 25250.50) to
Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to
hazardous materials.

                     legislative counsel’s digest
   SB 346, as introduced, Kehoe. Hazardous materials: motor vehicle
brake friction materials.
  Existing law establishes the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
in the California Environmental Protection Agency, with powers and
duties regarding the management of hazardous waste. Existing law,
administered by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, prohibits
the management of hazardous waste except in accordance with the
hazardous waste control laws, including laws governing the removal
of any mercury-containing vehicle light switch from a vehicle, and the
regulations adopted by the department. A violation of the hazardous
waste control laws is a crime.
  This bill would require the Department of Toxic Substances Control
to conduct a baseline survey, on or before January 1, 2013, of the
concentration levels of nickel, zinc, and antimony in motor vehicle
brake friction materials. The bill would require the department,
commencing January 1, 2013, and at least every 3 years thereafter, to
monitor the concentration levels of those constituents in motor vehicle
brake friction materials to ensure that those levels do not increase by
more than 50% above the baseline levels established through the baseline
survey. In that case, the bill would require the department to complete
scientific studies to evaluate the need to establish a maximum
concentration of any or all of these constituents in brake friction


                                                                      99
SB 346                           —2—

materials, and would authorize the department to establish a maximum
allowable concentration for those constituents, as specified.
  This bill would, commencing January 1, 2014, prohibit the sale of
any motor vehicle brake friction materials containing specified
constituents, including, but not limited to, cadmium, lead, and mercury,
in amounts that exceed certain concentrations. The bill would,
commencing January 1, 2023, restrict the concentration of copper in
motor vehicle brake friction materials sold in California, as specified.
The bill would require all manufacturers of friction materials used in
brakes on new motor vehicles, or as replacement parts, that are sold in
this state to obtain a certification of compliance with these requirements
from a 3rd party testing agency, and to mark proof of certification on
the friction materials. Any violation of the certification requirements
would be subject to remedies and penalties provided for acts of unfair
competition. The bill would require the Department of Toxic Substances
Control to enforce these provisions, and would require the department
to remove from sale any brake friction materials determined to be not
in compliance. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a
civil fine of up to $10,000 per violation. Because a violation of these
provisions would also be a crime pursuant to the hazardous waste control
laws, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
  The bill would require the department, commencing January 1, 2011,
and after consulting interested parties, to establish a fee on each new
axle brake set sold in this state at a level sufficient to fully implement
these provisions.
  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
  This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

      The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

 1      SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
 2   following:
 3     (a)  Friction materials are an essential component of motor
 4   vehicle brake systems and of critical importance to transportation
 5   safety and the public safety in general.

                                                                        99
                                —3—                             SB 346

 1      (b)  Debris from friction materials are generated and released to
 2   the surrounding environment in the course of normal brake system
 3   operation.
 4      (c)  Brake friction materials on motor vehicles are known to
 5   contain constituents, including copper, that have been proven to
 6   be harmful when found in significant quantities in the environment,
 7   and are regulated as part of a system of laws and regulations
 8   intended to prevent pollution and preserve the environment.
 9      (d)  Consistent with the critical role brake systems play in
10   transportation safety, limits on those harmful constituents are
11   necessary to protect and enhance California’s environment.
12      (e)  Manufacturers of brake friction materials shall use due
13   diligence to ensure that formulations that replace copper in brake
14   friction materials are less harmful to public health and the
15   environment.
16       SEC. 2. Article 13.5 (commencing with Section 25250.50) is
17   added to Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code,
18   to read:
19
20          Article 13.5. Motor Vehicle Brake Friction Materials
21
22       25250.50. For purposes of this article the following definition
23   apply:
24      (a)  “Board” means the State Water Resources Control Board.
25      (b)  “Department” means the Department of Toxic Substances
26   Control.
27      (c)  “Motor Vehicle” has the same meaning as defined in Section
28   415 of the Vehicle Code.
29      (d)  “Testing agency” means an agency approved by the
30   department as qualified and equipped for the testing of products,
31   materials, equipment, and installations in accordance with
32   nationally recognized standards.
33       25250.52. (a)  On and after January 1, 2018, any newly
34   reengineered motor vehicle models fitted with brake pads
35   containing friction materials that exceed 5 percent copper by weight
36   shall not be sold in this state.
37      (b)  On and after January 1, 2023, any motor vehicle brake
38   friction materials exceeding 5 percent copper by weight shall not
39   be sold in this state.


                                                                       99
SB 346                           —4—

 1      (c)  On and after January 1, 2032, any motor vehicle brake
 2   friction materials exceeding 0.5 percent copper by weight shall
 3   not be sold in this state.
 4       25250.54. On and after January 1, 2014, any motor vehicle
 5   brake friction materials containing any of the following constituents
 6   in an amount that exceeds the following concentrations shall not
 7   be sold in this state:
 8      (a)  Cadmium and its compounds: 0.01 percent by weight.
 9      (b)  Chromium(VI)-salts: 0.1 percent by weight.
10      (c)  Lead and its compounds: 0.1 percent by weight.
11      (d)  Mercury and its compounds: 0.1 percent by weight.
12      (e)  Asbestiform fibers: 0.1 percent by weight.
13       25250.56. (a)  On or before January 1, 2013, the department
14   shall conduct a baseline survey of the concentration levels of
15   nickel, zinc, and antimony in motor vehicle brake friction materials.
16   Commencing January 1, 2013, and at least every three years
17   thereafter, the department shall monitor the following constituents
18   to ensure that concentration levels of those constituents in motor
19   vehicle brake friction materials do not increase by more than 50
20   percent above the baseline levels established through the baseline
21   survey.
22      (1)  Nickel and its compounds.
23      (2)  Zinc and its compounds.
24      (3)  Antimony and its compounds.
25      (b)  If monitoring results show that concentration levels have
26   increased by more than 50 percent above the baseline levels, the
27   department shall complete scientific studies to evaluate the need
28   to establish a maximum concentration of any or all of these
29   constituents in brake friction materials. All studies and surveys
30   conducted by the department shall be subject to public review and
31   comment.
32      (c)  If the department determines that the scientific studies
33   demonstrate the need for controlling the use of the studied
34   constituent in brake pads, the department shall establish a
35   maximum allowable concentration for that constituent, by
36   regulation adopted pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
37   Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
38   Code.
39       25250.58. The following motor vehicle classes and brakes are
40   exempt from this article:

                                                                        99
                                  —5—                                SB 346

 1      (a)  Military combat vehicles.
 2      (b)  Vehicles employing internal closed oil immersed brakes, or
 3   a similar brake system that is fully contained and emits no copper,
 4   other debris, or fluids under normal operating conditions.
 5      (c)  Totally sealed brakes used for the primary purpose of holding
 6   the vehicle stationary, and not designed to be used while the vehicle
 7   is in motion.
 8       25250.60. (a)  Commencing January 1, 2014, all manufacturers
 9   of friction materials used in brakes on new motor vehicles, or as
10   replacement parts, that are sold in this state shall obtain a
11   certification of compliance with the requirements of Sections
12   25250.52 and 25250.54 from a third party testing agency. Proof
13   of certification shall be marked on the friction materials.
14      (b)  Any violation of subdivision (a) is an act of unfair
15   competition subject to all remedies and penalties provided by
16   Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division
17   7 of the Business and Professions Code.
18      (c)  Commencing January 1, 2014, retailers of friction materials
19   shall ensure that only brakes certified for sale in this state are
20   offered for sale in this state.
21       25250.62. (a)  Any violation of this article, including the
22   falsification of third party certification, by brake pad manufacturers,
23   distributors, or retailers, shall be subject to a civil fine of up to ten
24   thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation.
25      (b)  The department shall enforce this article. The department
26   shall remove from sale in this state any brake friction materials
27   determined to be not in compliance with this article.
28       25250.64. (a)  After consulting interested parties, the
29   department shall establish a fee on each new axle brake set sold
30   in this state, whether fitted to a new vehicle or sold separately, at
31   a level sufficient to fully implement this article. The fee shall be
32   assessed commencing on and after January 1, 2011.
33      (b)  The fee may be used to cover costs for outreach,
34   administration, fee collection, enforcement, monitoring, mitigation,
35   and control measures related to copper and other constituents in
36   brake friction materials.
37      (c)  Not more than 5 percent of the fees collected pursuant to
38   this section shall be used to offset accounting costs incurred by
39   retailers for fee collection.


                                                                            99
SB 346                          —6—

 1     (d)  The department shall consult with the board prior to
 2   allocating funds to, or implementing any provisions of this article
 3   relating to, motor vehicle brake friction materials constituent
 4   monitoring, mitigation, or control measures.
 5      SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
 6   Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
 7   the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
 8   district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
 9   infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
10   for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
11   the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
12   the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
13   Constitution.




                                   O

                                                                       99
February 26, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington D.C. 20460

Subject: Comments on the November 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines for the
         Construction and Development Industry (Docket ID No. USEPA–HQ–OW–2008–
         0465)

On behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) 1 , thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments on the subject proposed rule. Please accept these comments
submitted by CASQA on behalf of its members.

Beyond the specifics of the current draft proposal, this action is significant because it proposes to
establish the first national Effluent Limitation Guideline for stormwater discharges. The proposal
departs from the current approach to stormwater regulation of source control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that are designed to fit the site conditions and proposes instead prescriptive
BMPs and an “end of the pipe” effluent limitation. These aspects of the proposed regulation
remove consideration of the site-specific conditions, which may lead to significant unnecessary
expenditures and unintended negative consequences. Because of the potential precedent setting
nature of this rule, CASQA believes that USUSEPA needs to pay special attention to its approach
and analysis as this rule making is likely to be followed as a model for other stormwater discharges
on both the federal and state levels. Data requirements and characterization analysis for
stormwater discharges require careful attention because of their site-specific and episodic nature.
Unlike other ELGs where the “system” inputs can be controlled, inputs to stormwater control
practices are largely governed by the size and intensity of the storm event that cannot be
controlled. These factors require at minimum that USEPA undertake typical industry information
collection process normally associated with ELG rulemakings. In fact a more robust dataset may
be required to appropriately evaluate ELGs for stormwater discharges.

CASQA understands that USEPA is proposing a three part ELG, which will be implemented
sequentially depending upon the size and site-specifics of each individual construction site
regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction
stormwater permit.



1
 CASQA is composed of stormwater quality management organizations and individuals, including cities, counties,
special districts, industries, and consulting firms throughout California. Our membership provides stormwater quality
management services to over 26 million people in California and includes most every Phase I and many Phase II
municipal programs in the State. CASQA was formed in 1989 to recommend approaches for stormwater quality
management to the State Water Resources Control Board.
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
       Part 1. All sites must develop and implement effective erosion control, sediment control, and
               pollution prevention measures.

       Part 2. Construction sites with a disturbed area of 10 or more acres in a single drainage area
               must implement all of the elements of Part 1 plus install a sedimentation basin.
               USEPA specifies the design standard for the sedimentation basins, but allows for
               alternate approaches if they are equally effective and approved by the local permitting
               authority.

       Part 3. Construction sites with a total project size of 30 acres or more, that also have an
               annual Rain Fall Erosivity Factor 2 of 50 or higher and have soils that contain 10% or
               more by weight of clay (soil particle size of less than 2 microns) must meet all of the
               elements of Part 1 and Part 2 (if appropriate) plus comply with a numeric effluent
               limitation for turbidity of 13 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).

General Comments

CASQA understands that numerous associations and industry groups have requested an
extension of the comment period in order to prepare a more detailed comment response.
CASQA supports extending the comment period. CASQA believes that the proposed rule will
have far reaching effects on public and private entities that have not had adequate time to
understand the implications of the proposal.

CASQA strongly supports USEPA’s focus in the proposed rule making on the pollutants
associated with the construction phase and believes that the rule should not address post-
construction requirements. Post construction requirements are more appropriately addressed
through municipal storm water programs.

CASQA strongly supports the concept of incorporating a design storm that defines a maximum
discharge that would apply to the ELG or any numeric evaluation of construction effluent
quality. The best designed projects will only be effective for the range of designed or expected
rain events. Establishing a design storm provides the basis of design for SWPPP developers and
reassurance for owners and operators that they will not be unfairly penalized by regulators or
third party actions.

ELG Part 1 Comments - Minimum BMPs

With a few exceptions noted here, the proposed minimum BMPs are standard practices
implemented on most construction sites as part of effective construction site stormwater
pollution prevention plans. CASQA is concerned with the shift in approach from requiring an
effective design of erosion, sediment, and pollution prevention controls to specifying practices to
be implemented. Most construction stormwater discharges are regulated through general permits
because of the diversity in the size and nature of construction sites. A flexible BMP approach
allows a single regulatory tool to adequately regulate the large number of dischargers authorized
under construction stormwater general permits.
2
    Rain Fall Erosivity Factor is the R factor as calculated in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).


February 26, 2009                                                                                                   2
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
Once an Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) is created mandating minimum specific practices,
it is likely that separate general or individual permits will be required for categories of
construction sites. Even with this, it is not clear whether a permitting authority will be able to
waive or approve alternate but effective BMPs should a particular minimum BMP not be
applicable in a particular situation.

Additionally, minimum categories of BMPs are currently being incorporated into municipal
stormwater permits in California. The existence of two sets of minimum BMPs is likely to cause
confusion until permit cycles can be aligned, which is likely to be a minimum of five years from
the promulgation of the ELGs. Finally, identifying specific minimum BMPs may retard the
development of new and innovative BMPs that can accomplish similar or better performance
because an operator will not be able to use a new technique in lieu of a minimum practice.

CASQA recommends that USEPA specify minimum categories of BMPs leaving the
specific selection of the practice to the SWPPP designers who will select the appropriate
specific practice for the site conditions. For instance within Sediment Controls, the minimum
BMP categories might include 1) perimeter controls, 2) site access control, 3) tracking control, 4)
inlet control, etc. The specific control within each minimum BMP category would be selected
by the SWPPP designer. Under the site access control category the SWPPP designer could use a
stabilized rock entrance, wheel washes, “rumble” pads, or limiting traffic/equipment ingress and
egress from the site. Within Erosion Controls, a minimum BMP category might be temporary
soil stabilization, which might include soil roughening plus temporary cover. The SWPPP
designers would then identify the specific soil roughening practice (sheepsfoot rolling, track
walking, scarifying, stair stepping, etc.) and the cover practice (blown tacked straw, crimped
straw, mulch, rolled erosion control products, hydro-mulch, etc.). The critical factor is that
within each minimum BMP category the SWPPP designer would need to select an appropriate
practice for the site conditions.

CASQA notes that several of the proposed minimum BMPs will be problematic to implement for
the range of projects regulated by construction stormwater general permits. The range of
permitted projects include master planned communities of hundreds of acres to one acre projects
that might create a new or expanded home site to even smaller projects that have been
determined to be part of a common plan of development. Most of the largest construction sites
that are converting open space into developed areas are able to implement the proposed
minimum BMPs. However smaller sites, linear construction projects (e.g. utilities and highway
and roadway projects), redevelopment projects, and institutional or municipal construction
projects typically have tightly confined boundaries where adequate space within the project site
or available right-of-way limits the ability to implement certain types of BMPs. Projects
occurring within waterways, such as a streambed restoration project, may similarly find it
difficult to meet the minimum BMPs. Some examples from the proposed BMPs that will be a
challenge for these types of sites include:

   •   One proposed Erosion Control BMP states: Provide and maintain natural buffers around
       surface waters




February 26, 2009                                                                                    3
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
       The proposed practice is problematic for linear projects where the right-of-way or utility
       runs along or through a water body, or for streambed restoration or port construction
       projects that may occur within a water body.

   •   Several of the proposed Sediment Control BMPs overlap but generally address discharge
       from sediment control practices: - Discharge stormwater from perimeters through
       vegetated areas or functioning stream buffers. - Direct stormwater discharges from
       sediment controls to seep berms and level spreaders or utilize spray or drip irrigation
       systems to distribute stormwater to vegetated areas and functioning stream buffers to
       increase sediment removal and to maximize infiltration. - Control discharge from silt
       fences using a vegetated filter strip or buffer at least six feet in length.

       This requirement is not practical in many locations, particularly in the arid and semi-arid
       areas where some locations are not naturally vegetated and it would not be possible to
       establish and maintain year-round vegetation capable of significant pollutant control.
       Additionally, infiltration may be prohibited by site conditions, such as brownfields
       development, high ground water, or low permeability of soils. On smaller projects and
       redevelopment projects, adequate space may not exist to effectively spread out discharge.

   •   One proposed Sediment Control BMP requires: Establish, use and maintain stabilized
       construction entrances and exits. Install, utilize and maintain wheel wash stations to
       remove sediment from construction equipment and vehicles leaving the site. Install,
       utilize, and maintain wheel wash stations to remove sediment from vehicles and
       equipment leaving the site.

       While access control should be required for all sites, these specific practices are
       problematic for small sites or linear projects where adequate space may not exist for a
       stabilized entrance or for the storage of the wheel wash water. These sites are typically
       surrounded by paved areas, and limiting traffic onto the disturbed area coupled with
       tracking control measures may be equally effective. Street sweeping is already required
       in most local programs, and is often more effective. Wheel washing is a very expensive
       alternative, and should only be required if/when conventional track-out pads and/or
       sweeping are not effective.

CASQA recommends that USEPA re-evaluate the proposed minimum BMPs in light of the
full range of regulated project types and sizes and allow sites the flexibility to design these
controls based on the site conditions. Further, given the range of construction activity
regulated by NPDES permits, CASQA recommends that USEPA evaluate the need for
construction subcategories. Subcategories that should be considered include: linear projects,
dry-season projects, Brownfield projects, redevelopment projects, arid/semi-arid area projects,
and small projects. Alternately, USEPA could evaluate the phases of construction as
subcategories, e.g., mass grading and land development, utilities and road installation, vertical
build, and final stabilization.




February 26, 2009                                                                                   4
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
ELG Part 3 Comments

CASQA is opposed to Numeric Effluent Limitations (NELs) for construction stormwater
discharges until such time as sufficient data reflective of the construction site effluent, receiving
water quality, and Active Treatment System (ATS) performance throughout the nation can be
gathered. CASQA does not believe that data from 466 turbidity measurements from 19 active
treatment systems (collected in three states on the west coast) are adequate to establish a national
NEL.

Where receiving water data are available, the data suggest that natural background
concentrations typically exceed the proposed NEL of 13 NTU. The impact of discharging such
low turbidity effluent into receiving streams is unknown and may alter the habitat and ambient
environment. The cost of treating construction site runoff to such a low NTU value is not
reasonable given the lack of benefit to the receiving waters. In addition, the use of active
treatment systems (especially chemical flocculants) introduces other potential risks including that
of accidental releases.

Given the current data limitations, the challenges of statistically evaluating the data, and the
inter- and intra-storm variability, it is inappropriate to establish a NEL until USEPA can
complete a detailed data gathering effort consistent with the establishment of ELGs for other
industrial sectors.

CASQA supports the use of action levels 3 or benchmarks 4 as a more constructive next step
to provide better accountability and direction to construction stormwater dischargers as
they implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) and evaluate the
effectiveness of BMPs. CASQA supports the use of action levels where they are scientifically
defensible and where adequate data is available to appropriately establish them. Consistent with
the report prepared by a panel of experts convened by the California State Water Resources
Control Board on the feasibility of numeric effluent limitations 5 , CASQA supports the use of
numeric action levels (NALs) that are designed and selected to identify upset conditions that
would allow “bad actors” to receive additional attention and use of a monitoring strategy that
provides immediate feedback.

CASQA believes that turbidity is a useful parameter to make in-field assessments of BMP
performance and implement immediate responses to field measurements. Meters are commonly
available and are designed for ease of use and rugged functionality. CASQA, however, is
concerned with using turbidity (a non-conventional pollutant) as the basis of the NEL.

CASQA recommends that turbidity should be considered a conventional pollutant and
subject to the BCT criteria for purposes of the technology based standards criteria.

3
  Action Level = high set point, set to identify bad actors/situations; not a compliance point, not directly enforceable
but should trigger follow-up actions by discharger and attention to site by regulators.
4
  Benchmark = typical performance, used to self-audit performance; not a compliance point, not directly
enforceable), and self-trigger actions.
5
  Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/numeric/swpanel_final_report.pdf


February 26, 2009                                                                                                      5
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
USEPA has identified turbidity as the main regulated pollutant for the construction category and
has classified it as a nonconventional pollutant. Consequently, in determining the appropriate
categorical standards for construction projects, USEPA has applied the criteria for best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). The BAT standards apply to 126 specific substances
that have been designated priority toxic pollutants plus the general category of nonconventional
pollutant. It is more appropriate to apply the criteria for best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) because the turbidity parameter is essentially a surrogate for total suspended
solids, which is a BCT pollutant. BCT replaces BAT for control of conventional pollutants. The
Clean Water Act requires USEPA to establish BCT limitations based on a two-part ‘‘cost
reasonableness’’ test which we believe would be appropriate for the construction industry. The
Administrator has the authority to designate pollutants as being conventional and should do so in
this case for turbidity.

NEL application factors

If the proposed NEL remains in the final rule, CASQA would only support its application to sites
that pose a high level of risk. CASQA concurs that size, R-factor, and soil composition are
relevant factors to consider. We would add proximity to receiving water as an additional factor.
While we do not at this time have a specific distance recommendation, we note that various
permits specify distance ranges between 100 and 500 feet of the receiving water as being likely
to pose a higher risk than sites more distantly removed from the receiving water. An additional
consideration is whether a site discharges directly or indirectly to the receiving water. Sites
whose discharge is routed through regional detention basins pose a lower risk.

CASQA does not believe it is appropriate to establish a total project size as a factor in
determining whether Part 3 of the ELG should be applied. Consideration should be focused on
the actual simultaneous disturbed project area that has not been temporarily or permanently
stabilized draining to a common drainage within the project site. It is the amount of disturbed
area rather than the project size that affects the risk of sediment discharge. As written, projects
that meet the total project size (and the two other factors) would be required to meet the NEL
regardless of the area exposed at any point during the project for the entire duration of the
project. CASQA recommends that the project size factor be changed to area of
disturbance. Focus on disturbed area provides several benefits including: incentivizing projects
to phase grading, use temporary erosion controls, and promptly stabilize; avoiding treatment
requirements for small areas of disturbance; providing an appropriate bounding of the length of
time the higher standard of compliance must met; and providing a clearer standard for operators
of larger industrial, institutional, or municipal facilities whose boundaries could be defined as the
project size, when the actual construction activities may disturb very small areas.

In summary, CASQA believes that an action level approach coupled with a specified set of
categorical minimum erosion control, sediment control, and pollution prevention measures
would constitute a preferable and more effective ELG approach. This approach would
preserve the flexibility needed for the use of general permits implemented in the various climatic
and soil conditions throughout the United States. This would also allow USEPA to develop and
promulgate the ELG within its court ordered mandates and create a national program from which
USEPA could conduct the detailed data gathering effort needed to consider and evaluate a



February 26, 2009                                                                                  6
CASQA Comments on the November 2008 Proposed ELGs for the Construction and
Development Industry
numeric effluent limitation for the construction and development industry and subcategories of
the industry.

CASQA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Effluent Limitation
Guidelines for the Construction and Development Industry. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions regarding these comments.

                                            Very truly yours,




                                            Chris Crompton, Chair
                                            California Stormwater Quality Association

cc:   Tam Doduc, Chair, State Water Board
      Dorothy Rice, Executive Director, State Water Board
      Jonathan Bishop, Chief Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, State Water Board
      Bruce Fujimoto, Section Chief-Stormwater, DWQ, State Water Board
      Alexis Strauss, Director-Water Division, Region IX, USUSEPA
      James Hanlon, Director-Office of Wastewater Permits, Office of Water, USUSEPA
      CASQA Construction Subcommittee
      CASQA Executive Program Committee
      CASQA Board of Directors




February 26, 2009                                                                                7

								
To top